CBI's been at this for 50 years, and they're the only quiz bowl format to have been on national television on a regular basis. In the absence of a governing organization for quizbowl a la the NCAA, they've actually got the best credentials for awarding a national championship.
Upon further review, NoahMinkCHS still can't believe he wrote:(However, while I do agree pyramidial questions are the best tests of knowledge, and my favorites, I don't think they're necessarily the only legitimate questions. Hoses, of course, should be unacceptable, but short questions with one or two facts that turn into speed tests are not, innately, bad. Isn't speed, like knowledge, one of many components of quiz bowl that can be emphasized? If you don't want to play them, or feel they're against your idea of quiz bowl, that's your business.)
rdunlap wrote:One of the points Nathan mentioned in passing needs to be re-emphasized. College Bowl has a different metric for success -- its goal is to be a spectator sport, just as it once was, and that guides the way they structure the game. They're looking for a fast-paced game that keeps an audience interested, and they've succeeded there (as can be attested to by my wife, a non-player who married into the quiz bowl community).
ImmaculateDeception wrote:CBI questions are systematically terrible, and intentionally so,
MaS
Carthaginem esse delendam!
Carthago delenda est!
CBI is horrible, and no one should play it anymore!
I have never played CBI (I'm a junior in high school), and from what I read, I most likely never will; however, from what I have read so far--if I am completely wrong, fine crucify me--, I don't understand why there is an argument. This is far worse than the argument about '...those awful keegan questions...'. , and I thought that argument ended up extremely pointless. If everyone seems to agree that the CBI questions are bad, they treat you like children, etc., then what is the point of trying to justify why its bad? There isn't one. If I had to consistently play against bad questions, I quite frankly couldn't care less why the questions sucked. If I murder someone for their left shoe as opposed to their right shoe, does it make the crime any worse? No. The only people who seem to be arguing that CBI has to have bad questions because they are trying to be a spectator sport have no real basis in their arguments, they just seem to skirt around the fact that they got stuck in the position of defending CBI, and have no real evidence to support themselves with.Immaculate Deception wrote:CBI questions are systematically terrible, and intentionally so
iamsam wrote:I have never played CBI (I'm a junior in high school), and from what I read, I most likely never will; however, from what I have read so far--if I am completely wrong, fine crucify me--, I don't understand why there is an argument. This is far worse than the argument about '...those awful keegan questions...'. , and I thought that argument ended up extremely pointless. If everyone seems to agree that the CBI questions are bad, they treat you like children, etc., then what is the point of trying to justify why its bad? There isn't one. If I had to consistently play against bad questions, I quite frankly couldn't care less why the questions sucked. If I murder someone for their left shoe as opposed to their right shoe, does it make the crime any worse? No. The only people who seem to be arguing that CBI has to have bad questions because they are trying to be a spectator sport have no real basis in their arguments, they just seem to skirt around the fact that they got stuck in the position of defending CBI, and have no real evidence to support themselves with.
Chris Frankel wrote:e.g. the Minnesota effect that CBI produces
Chris Frankel wrote:you'll find that everyone has either a direct affiliation with CBI (e.g. Tom Michael) or has reaped some substantial benefit (e.g. publicity, a psuedo-title, etc)
Nathan wrote:you're conflating two points -- one of which is mine (your first statement) and attempting to use that to refute something else.
QB will never be a spectator sport.
CBI is a spectator sport on many campuses. As Sheahan pointed out sometime ago, much of the action (and financial renumeration) for CBI is in the intramural contests -- on many campuses they hold 40-60 team events, often with spectator/participants. It's often part of inter-fraternity competitions and the like.
However, CBI is not quizbowl. Period. CBI questions are horrible quizbowl questions. They are excellent CBI questions. They lead to the most "fun" for the most participants, thus making money for CBI.
There is no reason why CBI should be discussed on a quizbowl forum, it doesn't belong here. and btw, they don't care what you think, why should they?
only one reason has been pointed to as to why anyone in QB should ever care about CBI -- because it sometimes takes funding away from QB -- just like the chess club.
in other words, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. there are 2000 plus institutions of higher education in this country granting 4 year degrees and I guarantee you there are 2000 plus different set-ups for student organization and activity funding.
I realize that it's standard practice for some college undergrads to generalize from the unique practices of the bureaucracy at their institution -- but this really does simply vary from school to school.
(I've often wondered if a little creativity couldn't remove the funding conflicts with CBI within a given school -- like changing your name -- not using the words "college bowl" or "quiz bowl", etc.
Chris Frankel wrote:iamsam wrote wrote:I have never played CBI (I'm a junior in high school), and from what I read, I most likely never will; however, from what I have read so far--if I am completely wrong, fine crucify me--, I don't understand why there is an argument. This is far worse than the argument about '...those awful keegan questions...'. , and I thought that argument ended up extremely pointless. If everyone seems to agree that the CBI questions are bad, they treat you like children, etc., then what is the point of trying to justify why its bad? There isn't one. If I had to consistently play against bad questions, I quite frankly couldn't care less why the questions sucked. If I murder someone for their left shoe as opposed to their right shoe, does it make the crime any worse? No. The only people who seem to be arguing that CBI has to have bad questions because they are trying to be a spectator sport have no real basis in their arguments, they just seem to skirt around the fact that they got stuck in the position of defending CBI, and have no real evidence to support themselves with.
If you look up the basic information on every (or at least 99.9% of them) vocal CBI partisan, you'll find that everyone has either a direct affiliation with CBI (e.g. Tom Michael) or has reaped some substantial benefit (e.g. publicity, a psuedo-title, etc) from the disparity caused by the dumbing down of the questions and the field at tournaments that they would not have been able to achieve had they been competing on real knowledge-rewarding questions against a full strength field (e.g. the Minnesota effect that CBI produces). That's not a personal attack like Mr. Michael's eloquent, "DURR YOU GUYS ARE ASSHOLES," but it is something that can be verified in the case of the vast majority of vocal partisans, and hints at motivations that extend well beyond whatever they claim the reasons for their support of CBI.
iamsam wrote:Chris Frankel wrote:
If you look up the basic information on every (or at least 99.9% of them) vocal CBI partisan, you'll find that everyone has either a direct affiliation with CBI (e.g. Tom Michael) or has reaped some substantial benefit (e.g. publicity, a psuedo-title, etc) from the disparity caused by the dumbing down of the questions and the field at tournaments that they would not have been able to achieve had they been competing on real knowledge-rewarding questions against a full strength field (e.g. the Minnesota effect that CBI produces). That's not a personal attack like Mr. Michael's eloquent, "DURR YOU GUYS ARE ASSHOLES," but it is something that can be verified in the case of the vast majority of vocal partisans, and hints at motivations that extend well beyond whatever they claim the reasons for their support of CBI.
Alright, that makes sense then.
NotBhan wrote:Not really. This part of the argument is pretty lame. There are people who like CBI, some of whom are affiliated with it, some who aren't. Big deal. The non-pyramidal question structures, the high cost, the topic selection, and the 'spirit' of the tournament described elsewhere are the key detracting factors one should consider in assessing CBI, not the stuff quoted above.
Careful with that last brush -- despite its problems, some (many) of those retired quiz bowl players have fond memories of CBI. Don't assume a consensus you probably don't have.
rdunlap wrote:Interesting debate tactic -- throw out three non sequiturs and ask me to apply them to the right place in an argument
Well, let's stop right here for a moment. How many CBI *employees* have you personally met, Matt? (I won't get into whether or not you were trying to tar all CBI *volunteers* (like Tom Michael) with that very broad brush.) Since I'm pretty sure I know the answer, what is your basis for classifying them as "horrible human beings" Having had a fair amount of intereaction with their employees, both as a player and now as a moderator, I'd call them anything *but* horrible human beings. They're simply human, just like you and I, and they will make mistakes, like you and I.
"They sometimes get fooled by the direction a question is going to take, and that's intentional," said Reid. "The players on these teams are so good that 90 percent of the time they could interrupt the question and give the correct answer if the questions didn't take those kinds of turns. That wouldn't be fun to watch, so every now and then as I design these suckers, I say to myself, 'Watch this!' and wait 'til we're on camera. I got a lot of dirty looks this last tournament."
I'll grant that they do not always reward the same *depth* of knowledge as other formats
a criticism of ACF I've heard from current players is that it's often times "get past the clues no one knows to the reasonable clues".
rdunlap wrote: At the same time, I think CBI does a better job than the other formats of rewarding lateral thinking (i.e. "where could this question be going?") -- and whether that belongs in quiz bowl, and to what degree, is probably a topic best spawned onto a separate thread if folks weant to pursue it.
No reasonable evidence that either one of those two should stop folks from playing CBI.
The Minnesota example is a striking one... but it does reflect a team choice regarding which format to focus on, as well as the talents of the individual players.
In defense of Tom, I'll note that no one else, to my knowledge, has devoted the time and interest to the history of quiz bowl that Tom has. And that history is particularly relevant when looking at relations with quiz bowl organizations that are coach-driven rather than player-driven... as is the case at many HCASC schools, even if current players were not a part of it. He's earned his credibility, at least with the rest of the still active old-timers.
ImmaculateDeception notes that CBI is not currently a spectator activity, and he's correct... but the point is that it once *was*, and they are maintaining a position to be so again.
But the big picture is, society has changed since the 50's and 60's, when College Bowl could be a top-rated television show and Charles Van Doren could be a national celebrity for answering *hard* questions (albeit it dishonestly), and people involved with quiz bowl are simply geeks (a badge I proudly wear :-) ).
Factual discussions of the problems with any quiz bowl format (because they all have problems) are beneficial.
Characterizing people as "horrible human beings" and making other such inflammatory comments without cause serves no end.
To iamsam, I think the point I'd make is that CBI questions are *different*, not "systematically bad".
Not every format is to everyone's taste... that doesn't mean you call for its demise.
Matt Weiner wrote:[Tom Michael is] a CBI lackey who tells wild stories with not a shred of supporting evidence, including but not limited to the racist comment allegation and the hypothesis that people criticizing CBI questions on the board is keeping HCASC teams away from real quizbowl. Also, all of his former players loathe him. What does that tell you?
rdunlap wrote:To iamsam, I think the point I'd make is that CBI questions are *different*, not "systematically bad". Not every format is to everyone's taste... that doesn't mean you call for its demise. Back in "the day", I clearly enjoyed CBI and the NAQT-precursors more than ACF, but I've never seen ACF as a blight that should be wiped off the face of the earth.
rdunlap wrote:The Minnesota example is a striking one... but it does reflect a team choice regarding which format to focus on, as well as the talents of the individual players. In my days as a player, it was not unusual to see a playoff-caliber team at the invitational formats from which NAQT grew go sub-.500 at ACF (before Eric Tentarelli came to Cornell, *we* were such a team). That a team would perform so differently at CBI and NAQT, though... well, I'll admit I'm still thinking about that one... it's unexpected (especially in light of the number of times I saw CBI and NAQT questions this year that I would swear were written from the same article :-) ).
rdunlap wrote:But the big picture is, society has changed since the 50's and 60's, when College Bowl could be a top-rated television show and Charles Van Doren could be a national celebrity for answering *hard* questions (albeit it dishonestly), and people involved with quiz bowl are simply geeks (a badge I proudly wear :-) ). Again, an interesting separate thread would be whether Millionaire and Ken Jennings are emblematic of a swinging of the pendulum back in the direction where quiz bowl can reemerge. If one's objective is to remain accessible to spectators, adjustments due to changes in society may be necessary.
rdunlap wrote:For now, I'm going to stand by my assertion that, if schools stop particpating in CBI, for the *majority* of schools involved, that money would go to some other intramural activity, and not to the quizbowl team where one exists.
Joe Wright wrote:Another thing people seem to miss in anti-CBI arguments is what you are buying for your money when you buy into CBI. What you are buying is a hint of legitimacy in the outside world (or at least in colleges and universities) that is given by ACU-I.
Unless something radically changes, invitationals, ACF, and NAQT are student-run activities that are a big deal to us and mean absolutely nothing to anyone else. Even within schools, people not involved with the game are likely to see it for what it is--a small group of students, staff, and other university hangers-on who are running an incestuous little group of activities that only they understand or care about, and which have no sanction by anybody and in which students are running everything, and there's not even a governing body. (pardon the run-on) That is, if they notice us at all. For all the hard work that has gone into the game, all the tournaments that have been run, and all the fun we've had, the lack of (a) a governing body and (b) recorded history prevents any sense that we are doing something intransient. This has been demonstrated by the communications chaos that has arisen--which I don't think would have had nearly the effect if there WERE a sense of history and a national body.
Now, how many times have you tried to explain this organization of this game to people who have nothing to do with it, only to find yourself very frustrated. "Well, there's this CBI thing, which purists don't really like, then there's ACF, then most of the tournaments are run by individual schools..."
Whether we like it or not, people want to see a structure and an organization. This is why administrators can look at ACU-I/CBI and see something in place, and are much more willing to give money for participation. CBI provides many programs the only legitimacy it has in the eyes of its own administration. It's easy to dismiss CBI's prices as not reflective of the market, but when you look at it, CBI provides something that no other organization can. Perhaps with diligence, effort, and luck, NAQT can someday obtain a similar amount of legitimacy. ACF does not seem to have tried to do so, which is fine--it has been happy as something only hardcore players have an interest in, and has defined itself as such. Maybe NAQT will be different.
Has NAQT given any thought to approaching ACU-I and trying to replace CBI's contract? If CBI is in the financial hot water people have speculated about, it might just be possible to do so.
rdunlap wrote: Interesting debate tactic -- throw out three non sequiturs and ask me to apply them to the right place in an argument... something I never let teams get away with in my days as a high school policy debater and judge. And I'll pretty much ignore them as non-responsive here, except to clarify that we do agree that CBI and ACF are fundamentally different, but that I would classify them both under the broader heading of "quiz bowl". As you could tell from my original post, I see CBI and NAQT as close cousins.
Matt Weiner wrote:The fact is that CBI is composed of horrible human beings...
rdunlap wrote: I'll grant that they do not always reward the same *depth* of knowledge as other formats... OTOH, a criticism of ACF I've heard from current players is that it's often times "get past the clues no one knows to the reasonable clues". There's room for variation in the sport. At the same time, I think CBI does a better job than the other formats of rewarding lateral thinking (i.e. "where could this question be going?") -- and whether that belongs in quiz bowl, and to what degree, is probably a topic best spawned onto a separate thread if folks weant to pursue it.
The Minnesota example is a striking one... but it does reflect a team choice regarding which format to focus on, as well as the talents of the individual players. In my days as a player, it was not unusual to see a playoff-caliber team at the invitational formats from which NAQT grew go sub-.500 at ACF (before Eric Tentarelli came to Cornell, *we* were such a team). That a team would perform so differently at CBI and NAQT, though... well, I'll admit I'm still thinking about that one... it's unexpected (especially in light of the number of times I saw CBI and NAQT questions this year that I would swear were written from the same article :-) ).
ImmaculateDeception notes that CBI is not currently a spectator activity, and he's correct... but the point is that it once *was*, and they are maintaining a position to be so again. That's a goal that each quiz bowl organization chooses to emphasize in its own way... it's a non-goal for ACF, I believe it's a partial goal of NAQT, and I don't have a clue if TRASH sees that as a goal or not (for this one piece of the discussion, TRASH is relevant).
My original comment has provoked some private side discussions, and I think I have firmer evidence on the way to compare old era CB and modern era CB.
But the big picture is, society has changed since the 50's and 60's, when College Bowl could be a top-rated television show and Charles Van Doren could be a national celebrity for answering *hard* questions (albeit it dishonestly), and people involved with quiz bowl are simply geeks (a badge I proudly wear :-) ). Again, an interesting separate thread would be whether Millionaire and Ken Jennings are emblematic of a swinging of the pendulum back in the direction where quiz bowl can reemerge. If one's objective is to remain accessible to spectators, adjustments due to changes in society may be necessary.
And since I've chosen to stay actively involved in quiz bowl as a moderator (and certainly, you aren't implying that all moderators should be active players, with the problems that would cause at any NCT), I'll gladly stick my nose in to influence the direction of the sport, thank you very much. I still plan to be around quiz bowl ten years from now, influencing the sport for the involvement of my kids twenty years from now... will you still be discussing quiz bowl then, or are you concerned only with your short-term enjoyment and glory?
For now, I'm going to stand by my assertion that, if schools stop particpating in CBI, for the *majority* of schools involved, that money would go to some other intramural activity, and not to the quizbowl team where one exists. That *is* a consequence of the CBI/ACUI connection, but it's not CBI's fault -- it's because the primary mission of student unions is to support campus life, not intercollegiate competition.
Matt was simply the latest to mention HBCU's -- I remember your earlier discussion as well. Anyhow... if you were paying attention to Charlie Steinhice in the Yahoo! thread on this subject, you'd know HBCU's show up in Chattanooga periodically. Nothing's stopping you from coming to one of those tournaments. :-)
To iamsam, I think the point I'd make is that CBI questions are *different*, not "systematically bad". Not every format is to everyone's taste... that doesn't mean you call for its demise. Back in "the day", I clearly enjoyed CBI and the NAQT-precursors more than ACF, but I've never seen ACF as a blight that should be wiped off the face of the earth.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest